How much it was really him being mindful of his emotions getting the better of him - and how much it was a calculated effect - is anybody's guess. But that doesn't matter because the result is still the same. Sir Gary has had a significant moan, and in doing so he has widened the debate to more than just about grass length. Much like the rest of us who have had a good moan or two over the years, the manager has also now spoken of hindering sub-standard performance and attitude in key areas of the club.

What happens from here is anybody's guess. GJ is clearly saying his effort, and his team's and staff's effort, and the effort of some other areas of the club, are being hugely compromised. We can only speculate if he is prepared to stay in spite of that if improvement doesn't happen, and can reasonably assume he has a limit. What we can now know for sure is that he won't stay quiet if standards aren't raised.

As for Owner Norman Hayward and Chairman John Fry, they have a dilemma or two to ponder They can concede that despite years of silence and denial there is a lot wrong after all with core operations and strategies at the club they oversee. Or they can take issue with the manager. The logic would say that they need the manager to stay, especially as he is performing well and turning on him would fire the venom of almost the entire support in their direction.

Russell Slade had also tried to give a similar message that he was being compromised, and one suspects his fate was sealed from a long way out. This set of circumstances is different, but with Norman Hayward's iron-fist reputation we can't rule out anything. Although we would expect GJ's standing with fans and the success he is getting on the pitch to benefit him, and of course all parties know this.

Though what needs to be concentrated on here isn't the potential for a bust-up, but a sincere message from Gary Johnson that matches many of the supporters' observations over the years that there are a number of things we must address for the good of the club.

Intriguing situation, and alongside a good start on the pitch, lots to ponder. With upcoming visits from new big boys in League One Coventry City and Premier League West Brom in round two of the League Cup, there is a feelgood factor about team matters albeit with some reservation about the small squad.

Going back though to the pitch debate, it's not a surprise the manager is fuming when we are a League One club without a decent pitch to our name. The current main pitch was laid ten years ago in his first spell, and I don't think there'd be argument to the view that it's not been maintained to the hilt since. To have three nobbled pitches is going some.

Looking at all three provisions:

Top Pitches:

Out of action by nature or by design? Look at the wording in a Sport England summary of advice received from The FA in the document list for the foodstore planning application on the SSDC website: "Concerned about the quality - they've (the FA) stated they believe the land drains well and only needs some topsoil to create a level surface. Would want to see an independent assessment of the land by a sports pitch consultant."

Training Pitches At Alvington:

the need for first team training facilities means local club Westland Sports gets unceremoniously shunted off of pitches that were supposedly upkept at great expense only for them to be, er, not fit for purpose.

Main Pitch:

The manager complains for the whole of pre-season about a poor surface not to his liking and even for the first competitive game still can't get the grass cut to required length.

Clearly Gary is looking for a solution to his problems. In a statement issued by the club on July 19th to the Western Gazette, they "shared Gary's concerns" and handed the issue over to Director Brian Willis to investigate. One month on from that, Gary clearly still doesn't feel the issue is resolved. What will matter to him is what action is taken to raise those 'standards' he talks about, and what decisions the club takes for that to happen.

As i understand it there is a load of rubbish that was dumped on the top pitches when the site was first built. Over the years this material has began to surface. I'm not sure if it has happened yet but i believe there is a concern that some of this material may show itself when a player makes a tackle or something and gets an injury that could have been avoided.

To rectify this a couple meters depth would need to be removed (along with all the debris) and reinstated with new topsoil. cost of a football pitch size area...?

1000 Sq. Mtr @ 35 cu. mtr = £70,000 plus the labour to remove all the stuff in the first place and remove off site.. Total cost £100,000 plus.

Is this worth it?

Not sure about Alvington lane, that's another story.... but I can totally see the clubs dilemma if this is the case?
17/08/2012 15:55:24

Cruncher said ...

I had heard that and also the suggestion rubbished (puntastic! as Taff would have said)as convenient but inadequate excuse to go for the foodstore. Likewise I had heard a theory that inferior/stoney topsoil applied in recent times was the problem. No idea if either are true, but if your instance was true then there was time to plan for an unavoidable problem. Still would pay it - IF needed, after proper assesment. IMO mend the plot and consult/work with to the Council to provide the increased sport provisions that were in the original requirements of the site but never fulfilled. As George Smith foresaw, on site provision is to cherished not wasted.
17/08/2012 17:10:59

Submit Your Own Comments

Name :

E-Mail :

Notify Me When Comments Are Added To This Article?

NOTE: Your name will appear against your comment, but your email address will not be displayed. It is only required in case we need to contact you. It will not be distributed to anyone outside Ciderspace.